zeitga wrote:that's why I personnally never rush on dates, I know too much how sometimes things can be intricate between organizers and performers...

This kind of thing is quite unusual, though. I go to multiple gigs a month, sometime multiple per week, and a complete cancellation is a rare thing.

With some artists, you just can't wait very long and be sure of your ticket.

Tickets for Moby went on sale here on Friday and were completely sold out within 15 minutes. At that point, I checked marktplaats.nl and, sure enough, they were already being offered for twice the face value.

Lionheart, just to make one thing very clear. The theatre is very renowned here. Not some subburb dark and smoky place. Tickets were on sale through all the official ticket offices and were announced in official agenda's... so don't act as if we're stupid and like this is the first time we booked tickets...

ANYWAY... yesterday I received a phonecall from the theatre, asking me for my bank details for a full refund of the tickets! Face the facts! IT'S OVER!!!

Lionheart, just to make one thing very clear. The theatre is very renowned here. Not some subburb dark and smoky place. Tickets were on sale through all the official ticket offices and were announced in official agenda's...

so don't act as if we're stupid and like this is the first time we booked tickets...

if i said something wrong or offended anyone in any way
then you acted well...
but if i haven't
then whats the Criticism for...?

i wonder : do u really want only your opinion to be heard?

i m really sorry if you got that impression

but allow me to speak freely and express my opinion too...
since this place was created for everyone and not just for a few persons

ANYWAY... yesterday I received a phonecall from the theatre, asking me for my bank details for a full refund of the tickets! Face the facts! IT'S OVER!!!

you know such things happen very often...
and its not about being dark or bright..

i m really sorry that you feel like this, again.
but i think it s yourself that you need to examine...

i dont feel so perfect to stone other people with words
but as it seems nowdays many stone other by words

I received a letter from the Philharmonie today, saying that a full refund will be transferred to my bank account next week. I knew they didn't have my bank account details, though, so I called them to tell them the account number.

I must say that the venue has dealt with this very well. The woman was very polite and apologetic and said that it was quite a lot of work to chase down the details for all of the people who had purchased tickets. I can imagine.

All the drug-induced purple prose in the world about darkness and brightness won't change the fact that cancelling a gig under such circumstances is something of an oddity and most certainly not something that occurs "very often".

That poor communication and misunderstandings were at the root of this debacle becomes easier to acknowledge with each passing day, given the continued silence from Lisa's representatives.

Yeah Ian, I've received the letter as well.... it also states that we have to keep a close watch on the Patronaat website, cause it might well be that Lisa Gerrard will pop up at another date this year...

ianmacd - not sure what silence you are referring to. Lisa's team stated very clearly that the concert was not happening. The refunding of the tickets indicates what Lisa's team said is correct and the concert venue is at fault.

Though I am very pleased the venue is doing the right thing and contacting everyone and proceeding with the refunds. That is very good news.

DCDLibrary wrote:ianmacd - not sure what silence you are referring to. Lisa's team stated very clearly that the concert was not happening.

After which the venue continued to sell tickets. Then, ticket sales were suspended, but the venue maintained that the gig may still go ahead. It remained on their Web site.

So, the silence I'm referring to is twofold.

Firstly, there's the failure to explain why the venue continued to advertise the concert on their site. You may say this has nothing to do with Lisa's management, but given that they have, in the past, not been aware of tickets having gone on sale for gigs that definitely did end up going ahead, I can understand why many fans weren't prepared to accept the word of Lisa's representatives without further explanation. I include myself in that category.

The venue, for their part, claimed they couldn't obtain a definite answer from
Lisa's people. Presumably, their actual contact person was the enlisted Dutch promoter of the concert, with whom the blame for this entire mess possibly lies.

It took way too long from the first (and only) announcement to actually getting the gig removed from the calendar. That created enough confusion that I feel a second statement was warranted; necessary even.

It's also never really been explained what went wrong in the first place. If tickets were to go on sale for a new gig tomorrow, could we, the fans, purchase them with confidence, or should we be wary of further misunderstandings?

That brings me to the second aspect of the silence to which I'm referring.

Lisa's management have claimed that tickets for gigs would never go on sale without first being announced here. That is patently not true. We know this, because it has happened in the past. I, myself, have first-hand experience of it.

It has been said that Lisa has new management now, implying that a new team deserves our automatic trust and the benefit of the doubt in such matters.

Whilst I do trust their intentions, I have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being on top of things. The teething troubles and beginner's mistakes experienced with the new store demonstrate to me that Lisa has enthusiastic but inexperienced people working for her.

As an example, not so long ago, we witnessed complaints from people who found the MP3 download of Lisa's albums selling for less on Amazon than it had cost them in Lisa's own on-line store.

When this was discovered, Lisa's staff did the right thing and pulled the products from the third-party sites, but it's the fact that it was able to happen in the first place that makes a lasting impression. It's just another cock-up that should never have happened.

You may think me uncharitable, but I'm still here, still buying all of Lisa's releases and still willing to attend any of her gigs I'm able to travel to. That's a fair commitment from a fan, I think, and one that I've been adhering to for some 25 years now. I'm not here just to complain.

At the same time, I'd like to see Lisa's affairs handled in a manner that befits the artist. She deserves it and so do her fans.

Mistakes do happen, of course. To err is human. The occasional unforeseen problem is inevitable.

There's seldom a good justification for poor communication, however, and that's what happened here. Not only is it alleged that poor communication was the root cause of the very problem under discussion here, it also compounded the issue once it had arisen.

The silence that followed the initial, emotionally worded statement from Lisa's staff fostered confusion and frustration. Calls to the venue were met with a polite response. They couldn't tell us much, but it helped to know that they were as confused as we were. Appeals to Lisa's staff to clarify the matter, on the other hand, were met with a wall of silence. That's an important difference.

I guess I feel you aren't being at all charitable, and you are blaming Lisa's team for actions they have no control over.

They have no control over the sale of the tickets. The venue was never told they were getting a concert and in the end aren't. That they continued to sell tickets is not an issue of Lisa's team. It is an issue of how the venue handled early inquiries into possibly having a concert.

Until the contract was signed the venue had no business selling tickets.

I think your Amazon example is symbolic of our differences of perspective here.

Amazon screws with pricing of products all the time - and doesn't contact publishers/manufacturers to tell them when Amazon is changing things.

To imply Lisa's team could have stopped Amazon from adjusting the pricing is - I feel - completely unfair (and probably impossible).

Based on my experience in a different industry (hobby games - including role-playing games/books) - no company dealing with Amazon has real control over the pricing since Amazon can change things as they want.

Kind of like the privacy settings on Facebook. I adjust my privacy settings one month - and 3 months later Facebook changes the selections for privacy and defaults the settings to the ones I completely don't want.

It isn't my fault my privacy settings got changed from where I wanted - it is Facebook's. My only option is to go in - each instance - and readjust my settings.

The same with Lisa's team (and any publisher) and Amazon. Lisa signed up for sales through Amazon and set the price. Then Amazon decided to change the price. This issue has nothing to do with experience with Amazon and everything to do with Amazon's ability to make the changes they want when they want.

Lisa's team's fault? no. Amazon's fault? yes. What options are available to Lisa's team if they want to continue to sell via Amazon.com? To go in and adjust the pricing each and every time Amazon decides to change it OR to remove the items from sale via Amazon.

But you seem to be holding Lisa's team accountable for Amazon's actions.
And you seem to be holding Lisa's team accountable for the concert venue's actions.
You even seem to be holding Lisa's team accountable for the venue's lack of responsiveness when they were told to stop selling tickets for a concert they weren't having.?

If Lisa's team told the venue they were not getting a concert and the venue puts the tickets back for sale for more days, how exactly does Lisa's team stop that? Beyond telling them again to stop?

You mentioned: "Firstly, there's the failure to explain why the venue continued to advertise the concert on their site." Lisa's team did say there was no concert so don't buy tickets. Maybe you should ask the venue where they get off selling tickets for a concert they don't yet have confirmation they are hosting instead of asking for Lisa's team to explain why the venue did this? Since the venue should know, but Lisa's team may not know what caused the venue to behave inappropriately.

sigh

Okay - so this is a longer rant than expected... AND, I suspect, will not do much good.

So, in the end, yes, I do feel you are being uncharitable; you persist in holding Lisa's team accountable for things well outside their control. In my eyes, unfairly so.

But in this we may have to agree to disagree.

For my part, the questions on my mind have nothing to do with that venue/concert. They are:

1. When will Lisa's team announce the upcoming concerts?
2. Will any concert promo items be available via the LG store?

DCDLibrary wrote:ianmacd,The venue was never told they were getting a concert and in the end aren't.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that the venue either was or was not told that.

Since their dealings would almost certainly have been with a promoter working on Lisa's behalf, they very likely were told that the gig was confirmed. The venue, as far as I can ascertain, is an innocent party in this.

So, unless you work for the venue, the promoter or Lisa, I don't see how you can know what the venue was, in fact, told. Otherwise, it's an assumption.

Until the contract was signed the venue had no business selling tickets.

Again, the venue may have signed a contract. Do you know for a fact that they didn't? If not, it's an assumption.

Amazon screws with pricing of products all the time - and doesn't contact publishers/manufacturers to tell them when Amazon is changing things.

To imply Lisa's team could have stopped Amazon from adjusting the pricing is - I feel - completely unfair (and probably impossible).

What you say about Amazon is true, true to the point that it is common knowledge amongst Internet traders and consumers.

If Lisa didn't want to leave herself open to the pricing vagaries of Amazon, over which she had no control, and about which she possessed the knowledge that they do this to every little publisher under the sun, she should have chosen not to do business with them to begin with.

When Amazon did to her what Amazon does to every vendor that has no muscle, she pulled the product from sale. Wouldn't it have been better to go it alone from the start?

Based on my experience in a different industry (hobby games - including role-playing games/books) - no company dealing with Amazon has real control over the pricing since Amazon can change things as they want.

You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. You accept those terms or you don't do business with them. Simple.

Kind of like the privacy settings on Facebook. I adjust my privacy settings one month - and 3 months later Facebook changes the selections for privacy and defaults the settings to the ones I completely don't want.

It isn't my fault my privacy settings got changed from where I wanted - it is Facebook's. My only option is to go in - each instance - and readjust my settings.

I'll be generous and say that the first time Facebook does this to you, Facebook is culpable. Even though you could have read up on their long history of questionable practices and the contempt they have for their users' privacy and security, let's assume you couldn't have known they would eventually do this to you.

The second time it happens to you, I think you are culpable. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. How many lessons do you need before you learn?

Once you know you're dealing with an unscrupulous organisation, you cut your losses and walk away.

It's weak to claim that your only option is to go back in and change your security settings again. Nonsense. Vote with your feet, suspend your account and instruct Facebook to delete it at their earliest convenience.

What you really mean is that, to you, continuing to have and operate a Facebook account is worth the loss of control, the loss of freedom and the loss of privacy. That's quite a hefty price.

Let's be clear: no-one is forced to keep an account open, so you most certainly have options.

What options are available to Lisa's team if they want to continue to sell via Amazon.com?

Well, there you have the crux of the dilemma: retain price control or lose sales by not selling through the world's largest on-line retailer.

Lisa demonstrated here that her integrity means an awful lot to her and I greatly respect her for that. She turned her back on a potentially massive sales channel.

But you seem to be holding Lisa's team accountable for Amazon's actions.

Not at all; only for the decision to do business with Amazon in the first place, knowing that this is standard business practice at the company.

You even seem to be holding Lisa's team accountable for the venue's lack of responsiveness when they were told to stop selling tickets for a concert they weren't having.?

Again, do you know that the venue were told to stop selling tickets? If not, it's yet another baseless assumption.

Incidentally, note how many assumptions you have made in your response to me and ask yourself whether that isn't directly related to the lack of information that has been forthcoming on the matter.

All of us have had to guess, assume and extrapolate from past experience. You're now doing the same.

If Lisa's team told the venue they were not getting a concert and the venue puts the tickets back for sale for more days, how exactly does Lisa's team stop that? Beyond telling them again to stop?

I suspect Lisa's staff had no direct dealings with the venue at all. If you know differently, please say.

I suspect Lisa's staff dealt only with a local promoter and that he was the one who dealt with the venue.

I think Lisa's staff could and should have been absolutely clear with the promoter. Perhaps they were; I'm not claiming otherwise.

Beyond that, I don't think there's much they could have done, short of calling the venue and demanding that they remove all advertising of the concert. I strongly suspect this wasn't done, but again, I don't know.

Lisa's team did say there was no concert so don't buy tickets. Maybe you should ask the venue where they get off selling tickets for a concert they don't yet have confirmation they are hosting

As I said, they may have received such a confirmation from the promoter involved. I'd still consider it probable at this point.

Again, do you know for a fact that they didn't have such a confirmation?

instead of asking for Lisa's team to explain why the venue did this? Since the venue should know, but Lisa's team may not know what caused the venue to behave inappropriately.

I won't agree that the venue "behave(d) "inappropriately", because I don't believe that's been demonstrated.

However, I can agree that Lisa's staff "may not know" why the venue continued to advertise the gig. Then again, they may know. If they had been more forthcoming, you and I wouldn't have to wonder whether or not they knew. Communication dissolves ambiguity.

Okay - so this is a longer rant than expected... AND, I suspect, will not do much good.

If by "do much good", you mean 'bring me around to your way of thinking', you're absolutely right.

You make many assumptions in your defence of Lisa's team, but provide no evidence that they reflect actual events.

Conversely, you make many assumptions of wrongdoing on the part of the venue, but again, you fail to present any evidence that the venue acted inappropriately in any way.

The one thing I'm certain of in this whole unfortunate episode is that the communication from Lisa's side could have been much better. At the end of the day, communication eases frustration by aligning expectations with reality.

So, in the end, yes, I do feel you are being uncharitable; you persist in holding Lisa's team accountable for things well outside their control. In my eyes, unfairly so.

Just to reiterate, I hold them responsible only for not having communicated more on the matter. I'm sure you'd agree that the decision whether or not to post here is very much within their control, would you not?

And as for the Amazon tangent, I'll reiterate that I don't hold Lisa's staff responsible for Amazon's whimsical pricing; only for doing business with a company known for its whimsical pricing. This is a key difference.

Again, I'm sure you'd agree that the decision whether or not to do business with Amazon is very much within Lisa's control, would you not?

But in this we may have to agree to disagree.

I have no problem with that.

Ultimately, I contend that it's a fact, not merely my opinion, that the things for which I hold Lisa's staff accountable are truly within their control. Specifically, the decision whether or not to communicate with the fans and the decision whether or not to do business with Amazon.

Where we enter the realm of opinion is in our belief whether Lisa's staff did, in fact, make adequate use of that ability to communicate with us. I contend they did not and I know you disagree. That's fine.